Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[MattHooper]

I haven’t read deeply into the ongoing thread, but this statement resonates greatly with me. I love both amplified and acoustically played music and I love hifi listening, but there’s nothing in the world of hifi that compares with playing or hearing unamplified music. Do you want to hold a photograph of a baby, or hold the baby?

Yup,

I was just discussing this with audiophile buddy. he was talking about the last time he was in Warsaw for an audio show and they were walking down the street when they suddenly heard music coming from around the corner. It was a Live Kasmer type band, which included all sorts of brass instruments, blaring very loudly. As he said he and his friends just like each other and said, that’s so obvious live music, and there was a scale and power and brilliance that virtually no domestic audio system is going to reproduce.

I had some of the exact same experiences when I was in New Orleans, when some of those brass bands would be approaching from down the street around the corner. I was just overwhelmed with “ no audiophile system I’ve ever heard has even remotely approached this type of sound.”

 

[wadude]

Yup,

I was just discussing this with audiophile buddy. he was talking about the last time he was in Warsaw for an audio show and they were walking down the street when they suddenly heard music coming from around the corner. It was a Live Kasmer type band, which included all sorts of brass instruments, blaring very loudly. As he said he and his friends just like each other and said, that’s so obvious live music, and there was a scale and power and brilliance that virtually no domestic audio system is going to reproduce.

I had some of the exact same experiences when I was in New Orleans, when some of those brass bands would be approaching from down the street around the corner. I was just overwhelmed with “ no audiophile system I’ve ever heard has even remotely approached this type of sound.”

BTW, this is what I meant by the comment, "At the end of the day it's just a stereo."

 

[Waxx]

Okay ... I see what you're saying. But wouldn't an EQ preset on one of the other speakers, with an instant in/out, give you the same capability with an even faster comparison, while saving you money and space on the bridge?

IOW ... what can the NS-10 do that cannot be replicated more easily and efficiently?

There are others that do it cheaper, like the Avatones (auratone like speakers) that are a lot cheaper. Those are used most now. But the NS10 in it's time was cheap, now prices are highly inflated because the name.

But you can't eq it, it's how it colours trough distortion that tell what you need to know, not a flawed fr curve.

 

[Mart68]

Yup,

I was just discussing this with audiophile buddy. he was talking about the last time he was in Warsaw for an audio show and they were walking down the street when they suddenly heard music coming from around the corner. It was a Live Kasmer type band, which included all sorts of brass instruments, blaring very loudly. As he said he and his friends just like each other and said, that’s so obvious live music, and there was a scale and power and brilliance that virtually no domestic audio system is going to reproduce.

I had some of the exact same experiences when I was in New Orleans, when some of those brass bands would be approaching from down the street around the corner. I was just overwhelmed with “ no audiophile system I’ve ever heard has even remotely approached this type of sound.”

There's a sighted aspect to that as well though. Could you tell it was live if it was the next street over? And you went round to look and it was just a big P.A ?

Was at a meet at a pub over the weekend, we had some big towers set up and were blasting it out. I went out into the hall and there was a taxi driver on his phone, 'It's all happening here, they've got a band on in the back room.'

 

[MattHooper]

There's a sighted aspect to that as well though. Could you tell it was live if it was the next street over? And you went round to look and it was just a big P.A ?

Yes. I’m talking about our experience of hearing music before we see the source of the music, and how obvious it is that it’s live music. This was un amplified instruments I’m talking about in this particular case.

As a mentioned i’ve never encountered a domestic audiophile system that could even come close.

But I also find that case when it comes to even live amplified music.

I live right on one of the most popular downtown strips in our city. Once the weather is warm, if you stroll the street, you will almost inevitably start walking past live street bands, and at night you’ll be walking past all sorts of bars with bands playing - from rock and blues to folk, jazz you name it.
Many of the bars open right into the street, so you can hear everything that is going on as you approach them. And the majority of those are amplified. And it’s still almost always obvious when you’re approaching live band playing. There’s a liveness and dynamics.

 

[kyuu]

Do you want to hold a photograph of a baby, or hold the baby?

Um, for any baby that isn't mine I'll take the photograph, thanks.

 

[Mart68]

Yes. I’m talking about our experience of hearing music before we see the source of the music, and how obvious it is that it’s live music. This was un amplified instruments I’m talking about in this particular case.

As a mentioned i’ve never encountered a domestic audiophile system that could even come close.

But I also find that case when it comes to even live amplified music.

I live right on one of the most popular downtown strips in our city. Once the weather is warm, if you stroll the street, you will almost inevitably start walking past live street bands, and at night you’ll be walking past all sorts of bars with bands playing - from rock and blues to folk, jazz you name it.
Many of the bars open right into the street, so you can hear everything that is going on as you approach them. And the majority of those are amplified. And it’s still almost always obvious when you’re approaching live band playing. There’s a liveness and dynamics.

Yes, you won't get that with a domestic system unless it's monstrous and live playing is usually just a little bit 'loose'.

But something recorded live then played back through a P.A can create that illusion, been fooled by that myself.

 

[SuicideSquid]

Many of the bars open right into the street, so you can hear everything that is going on as you approach them. And the majority of those are amplified. And it’s still almost always obvious when you’re approaching live band playing. There’s a liveness and dynamics.

Might be worth pointing out that you *can* replicate this sound with a recording, but it's a terrible idea.

Consider a snare drum. When you hit a real-live snare drum as part of a drum kit, the initial attack is often over 100dB @ 1m. A sound that loud will resonate in a room in a particular way that quieter sounds won't, so you get that initial startling "CRACK" and then a decay. If you record a snare and play it back at 75dB while mixing, you go 'wow this just sounds so dry and lifeless", even if you've used an excellent mic and preamp and almost perfectly captured the sound of the snare.

If you crank the volume to where that snare sound comes out of your monitor at 100dB+, it will actually sound really close to a real snare. It won't be exactly the same because a snare is omnidirectional and actually emits sound from two different places (the head on top of the drum and the snare beads on the bottom), but it's close.

But you need a speaker that's not going to distort (or be damaged) by playing at that volume, an amp that can drive the speaker that loud without distorting and without raising the noise floor, and you actually need to want to listen to sounds coming out of your speaker at 100dB+.

When Phil Collins and Hugh Padgham created the reverse-gated reverb drum sound in the early 80s on Peter Gabriel 3 and then refined it on Abacab and Face Value, it was so revolutionary because it gave the feeling of a powerful attack and "real" decay at normal listening levels.

So much of the mixing and mastering process is about applying EQ, compression, and reverb, to trick your ears into thinking an instrument that has a 40dB dynamic range and 100dB maximum volume sounds "realistic" when compressed to a 15dB dynamic range and played back at 80dB peak volume. But if you don't apply any of those tricks and you just play back through a PA cranked up to fill a live music space, it's going to sound just like a live band performing. Almost no one wants that experience in their living room, though.

 

[MattHooper]

But something recorded live then played back through a P.A can create that illusion, been fooled by that myself.

Yes, I can see that happening.

Almost no one wants that experience in their living room, though.

Agreed.

This is why I’ve mentioned before that in terms of my referencing aspects of real sound, I am being somewhat selective.

I no more want the exact sound of live drums being played in my 15’ x 13’ room then I want my Home Theatre system to perfectly replicate the sound of mortar exploding near my ears in a war movie.**

I want a somewhat tamed illusion, with enough of the features, I care about from the real thing in there to help me slip into the illusion and also enjoy those aspects of the sound.

This is one reason why I am so focussed on the timber of voices and instruments as being the first thing I look for. Then I look for a sense of focus and density to the sound and palpability, that gives me the sense of solid instruments, moving air around the speakers, and then dynamics. I don’t need fully realistic dynamics, but enough to make the sound lively and a bit more life like and which highlights the dynamic playing and playing interplay of the musicians.

I think that’s about as much as I can ask for or that I’ve ever heard from the typical domestic audiophile system.

There are however, audiophiles with much bigger rooms and much bigger systems who are going for trying to re-create something more like live sound. They want to hear, orchestra and drums and everything with some of the scale and dynamics of the real thing. And perhaps they achieve it.
I haven’t heard that yet myself from an audiophile’s system. But I’ve heard it more from professional/commercial type systems - PA systems, POST PRODUCTION mixing theatres, commercial Cinemas, etc.

**(this by the way is why pablolie completely misunderstood my views when questioning him about sound quality)

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The key issue preventing everyone from acknowledging digital MCH playback productions as the pinnacle of home audio, is that a significant portion of audiophiles have an anti-digital, anti-MCH, anti-progress attitude (they are stuck at the start of Toole’s ‘break-in period’) that is blocking them and making them literally incapable (sighted) of having the experience that is universally (proven, tested, in controlled listening, read the book) preferred as a fully superior perceptual experience of the sound waves themselves. The fact that a lot of recording engineers are playing to this, is a hand-on-wallet betrayal to the potential of their profession.

Thanks. I have been saying much the same thing (perhaps not as pointedly) for years. When I began writing my now discontinued column MITR in 2003, I expected that more than 2 decades hence multichannel would have supplanted stereo as the format for serious listeners. Sigh.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

You guys are all nutz... LoL. I was invited to a recital with flute and piano with Prokofiev in a small intimate setting. The sound was so moving and unlike anything a home audio system could recreate. I teared up... It was that good.

Understood. Comparing live to reproduced only demonstrates that current reproduction has not approached perfection closely enough to fool us. OTOH, when I compare the stereo and multichannel playback of a good modern recording of such a performance created in a decent intimate space, the multichannel is much more convincing and affecting.

 

[Sokel]

The key issue preventing everyone from acknowledging digital MCH playback productions as the pinnacle of home audio, is that a significant portion of audiophiles have an anti-digital, anti-MCH, anti-progress attitude (they are stuck at the start of Toole’s ‘break-in period’) that is blocking them and making them literally incapable (sighted) of having the experience that is universally (proven, tested, in controlled listening, read the book) preferred as a fully superior perceptual experience of the sound waves themselves. The fact that a lot of recording engineers are playing to this, is a hand-on-wallet betrayal to the potential of their profession. But hey, if ‘stereo crumbs’ is what the consumers want more than five-star degustation, then give them their crumbs, (and for vinyl charge them a 500% premium for the pleasure).

I only read the last page so sorry if I'm out of the meaning.
But.

It's not about people who are "anti-name it" .I see myself like no anti to anything.And I would really like to enjoy my MCH music.
So I tried,I went around MCH systems most of them made by their users as we mostly see here.Some modest,some extremely elaborate.
The only one that made me feel what the whole thing is all about was one made by pros.Down to the carpet,no guessing,no trial and error,no nothing.
About 80k total cost,not cheap but certainly cheaper that what many people spend at say a 10 year mark.

So,it's not about the principle,its about the actual application.Which typically is sadly an extremely bass-heavy mess.
Nice for movies I suppose.But that's it.

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks. I have been saying much the same thing (perhaps not as pointedly) for years. When I began writing my now discontinued column MITR in 2003, I expected that more than 2 decades hence multichannel would have supplanted stereo as the format for serious listeners. Sigh.

I think we could possibly do with a more careful analysis as to why multichannel set ups have not generally caught on with the public/music lovers/audiophiles. I think trying to blame it on troglodyte attitudes among audiophiles doesn’t really cut it.

I certainly don’t see that it’s the case that most audiophiles have an anti-digital bias.
Most have been comfortable with and using digital sources for a long time.

“Anti-progress?”

When some new technology proves be game changing or truly high value, and importantly, fits in to their lifestyle without too much disruption, plenty of audiophiles adopt new technology. Most for instance are now streaming music in their systems.

Anti-multichannel? I wouldn’t say that I proportion of audio files significant enough to stop multichannel feel antipathy to multichannel.

First of all, plenty of audiophiles DO have surround set ups as well - often associated with Home Theatre, or even just their music system. Among those you can see conversations where some still prefer two channel for their music listening.

But many don’t because of a similar reason full Atmos set ups are going to be catching on with the public: It’s a big ask in terms of the equipment needed, and how a truly high-end multi system can fit into most domestic scenarios. And for many, two channel is awesome and good enough so they don’t feel the need to go to the expense and more hassle of more speakers and wiring for multi channel and all that.

“ progress” shouldn’t just be seen in terms of pure performance, but what also makes that performance easier and more viable for people to use.

There’s been all sorts of wild surround systems, like ambiosonics, that provide experiences you’re not gonna get with two channel. But they just aren’t practical for most people. Streaming became very practical. Surround systems for music use - truly high-end sound systems, where the surround speakers may be of the quality or better many audiophiles are using for their two channel systems - have not. (I’ve seen plenty of photos of audiophiles who have tried to integrate good surround speaker set ups in to domestic rooms in which a 2 channel system would integrate easily and unobtrusively. Where is the surround speakers, which had to go on their own stands, clearly had negative aesthetic and ergonomic impact on the room).

That’s what niche products look like.

So I disagree that the Luddite proportion of audiophiles has been the main factor holding back adoption of high-quality surround systems for music playback.

There are just other considerations in mind.

I’m hardly against multichannel since my work is mixed for multi channel. I have both a surround system that I put together very meticulously and love, as well as my two channel system. Do I enjoy music on the surround system? Very much. Do I find myself more engaged, more blown away more entranced by the music on the surround system? No. It’s cool and somewhat different. But I also get amazing sound from my two channel system, so if I didn’t have a Home Theatre set up, I doubt I would’ve bothered with a surround system.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I think we could possibly do with a more careful analysis as to why multichannel set ups have not generally caught on with the public/music lovers/audiophiles. I think trying to blame it on troglodyte attitudes among audiophiles doesn’t really cut it.

Of course. I am not casting blame on individuals but expressing my disappointment that something I regard as objectively/technically superior as well as personally rewarding has not achieved greater penetration among serious listeners. Most of the reasons you state are reasonable and well known and, yes, people are right to choose what optimizes the emotional return on their financial and environmental investments.

Do I enjoy music on the surround system? Very much. Do I find myself more engaged, more blown away more entranced by the music on the surround system? No. It’s cool and somewhat different. But I also get amazing sound from my two channel system, so if I didn’t have a Home Theatre set up, I doubt I would’ve bothered with a surround system.

I have heard this before and I wonder if it has to do with what individuals want from their systems. I listen almost exclusively to classical music recorded in real time (mostly) and in public performance spaces and the closer I get to a recreation or (please fool me) simulation of that event, the happier I am. For that, multichannel makes a significant difference. When I listen to music that I care less deeply about, including almost all non-classical, I find the effect of multichannel no more than "cool and somewhat different."

I wouldn’t say that I proportion of audio files significant enough to stop multichannel feel antipathy to multichannel.

I don't understand this sentence. Can you correct/restate it for me, please?

 

[DSJR]

Listening with a golden eared musician friend to a couple of DACs. He claimed one DAC (cheap, Chinese) 'Made the grand piano sound like an upright' whilst through the expensive, modded R-2R DAC, the full tone of the grand came through.

I could really determine no difference. But I deferred.

I've since discovered that the piano on that particular song is an upright....I've not had the heart to tell him.

Is that the fella who bought some used and actually rare large speakers for his small sitting room and loved them, despite wiring them out of phase with each other and not noticing?

 

[DSJR]

I've heard that for years, and it makes no sense now just as it made no sense then.

If food tastes good in a sewage treatment plant, does it taste good everywhere?
If you can make a coat feel good in winter, does it feel good all year long?
If you can make a Jeep traverse boulders, will it traverse mud?
If paintings look good in dim light, do they look good in all light?

Let's look at this logically.
The NS-10 has a high-midrange bump. If you check your mix by leaving that in place, you produce an overall tonality that is deficient in the high midrange by virtue of compensation. (Keep in mind that cognitive bias cannot be eliminated.) Does that "sound good everywhere"?
If you check your mix by EQ-ing the bump out, then what's the difference between the NS-10 and any other flat monitor?

Not only that, but different sub-par consumer systems have different sub-par audio characteristics. Some are bright. Some lack bass. Some are bright but do not lack bass. Some have a pronounced midbass and lower midrange, some don't. Some are cheap crap that are going to sound like cheap crap regardless of what you put into them.
Just because you used an NS-10 to check a mix doesn't mean that you had a useful check for all those different systems.

Sorry to butt in, but I never thought that good engineers ever used NS10s for anything other than checking a particular ear-sensitive frequency band for cluttered or phasey mixing, the balance of the NS10 and basic 'cleanliness' of the sound aiding this aspect I gather and better than a fully 'neutral' monitor.

I noticed a pic of Steve Wilson's latest studio. The usual Genelec surround system, yet Focal three-ways as 'mains' it seems now (I don't think he always had these). I wonder why he didn't get larger Genelecs as mains?

 

[MattHooper]

Of course. I am not casting blame on individuals but expressing my disappointment that something I regard as objectively/technically superior as well as personally rewarding has not achieved greater penetration among serious listeners

Understandable!

Since you quoted Newman - who was blaming audiophiles - saying you’ve been saying the same thing, I figured I could address both of your posts.

I have heard this before and I wonder if it has to do with what individuals want from their systems. I listen almost exclusively to classical music recorded in real time (mostly) and in public performance spaces and the closer I get to a recreation or (please fool me) simulation of that event, the happier I am. For that, multichannel makes a significant difference. When I listen to music that I care less deeply about, including almost all non-classical, I find the effect of multichannel no more than "cool and somewhat different."

Yes, I agree It’s clear individuals want different things from their systems. But I’m not sure that it’s necessarily based on the choice of music. As you know, there are plenty of audiophiles who are focussed on classical music, or at least listen to a lot of classical music, but who choose two channel.

I love orchestral music (along with many other genres) and I enjoy it on my surround system, but still tend to prefer it on my two channel system. I find some level of immersion increased in surround, but I don’t find a particular leap in “ believability.”
I get the vast majority of what I find enjoyable important and convincing (with obvious caveats), even with orchestral music, from my channel system.

If I’m listening to some of the excellent recordings I have of orchestra performing Bernard Herrmann pieces, I find my two channel speakers spread wide apart, open up what appears to be (depending on the recording) a vast space in which I am hearing the instruments. When those Herrmann low woodwinds growl I can feel it, when the brass sections come in full power, there is a wonderful, powerful and density and acoustic power, and their brass harmonics light up the acoustics of the hall in ways that I find to be quite reminiscent of the real thing, and like I am to a degree participating in that acoustic space.

When I go to surround… yes there’s a tiny bit more hall sound sent to the surround channels. So it wraps around me more.
But it doesn’t make some big leap in audio quality or realism for me.

I know what it’s like to switch the surround sound to two channel and hear the effect of the surround content disappearing.
That’s a bit more obvious in an apples to apples comparison just using my surround system. And part of that is because my L/C/R speakers are further away from me near the projection screen. So the stereo sound is further away from me and less immersive.

Where as my two channel speakers are pulled well out from the wall much closer to me, and they create more immersion.

I sometimes hook up those two channel speakers to the rest of my Home Theatre system, in which I can do the same comparisons: music and surround, versus collapsing it to stereo, and in such cases the difference is significantly smaller. I still maintain a really compelling sense of spaciousness and depth and immersion even in stereo.

If I had seven of the same speakers that I use for my two channel music listening, surrounding me, well, that could certainly change the game.

But I could neither afford that nor of course, could I manage it in my room. And I am super picky about my loudspeakers especially for two channel, and I would rather use my money to get exactly the sound I want from the two channel, versus spreading that money across something like seven loudspeakers of either lesser equality, or simply that I don’t like as much as the two channel speakers I use.

So that’s how my priorities shake out. Absolutely love music on my surround system. Watching musical performances on that system is one of my favourite things to do. But doesn’t replace my two channel system.

I don't understand this sentence. Can you correct/restate it for me, please?

Sorry, that was a completely mangled sentence from voice dictation.

I tried to say: I don’t think the numbers of Luddite “anti-surround/anti-digital” audiophiles are relevant enough to be blamed for the lack of surround sound (music) acceptance.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Yes, I agree It’s clear individuals want different things from their systems. But I’m not sure that it’s necessarily based on the choice of music. As you know, there are plenty of audiophiles who are focussed on classical music, or at least listen to a lot of classical music, but who choose two channel.

That is not what I meant. I was referring to what I was listening for and, in part, that depends on what I am listening to.

When I go to surround… yes there’s a tiny bit more hall sound sent to the surround channels. So it wraps around me more.
But it doesn’t make some big leap in audio quality or realism for me.

That is what I am trying to get at. That increased sense of place is a "big leap in audio quality or realism for me."

....and thanks for the elucidation.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I no more want the exact sound of live drums being played in my 15’ x 13’ room

I want a somewhat tamed illusion

Both of these excerpts point to something I've noticed for years. One group of listeners wants to be "in the band". IOW, they want to have a playback system that puts them onstage, in the middle of things.
Another group of listeners (of which I am one) want to replicate the experience of a concert hall. They want the artists in front of them, at some appreciable distance, and the "envelopment" to be similar to the reverberant sound field in a hall.

Both of your comments, @MattHooper , seem to indicate that you, like me, are in the second group. Correct?

 

[MattHooper]

Another group of listeners (of which I am one) want to replicate the experience of a concert hall. They want the artists in front of them, at some appreciable distance, and the "envelopment" to be similar to the reverberant sound field in a hall.

I would say generally speaking I’m in the
“ prefer the performers in front of me” category. Like you.

I’m certainly not against neato stuff happening in the surrounds. After all, I work in surround sound and I’m a Home Theatre fanatic as well. And depending on the music, I can quite enjoy when some musical elements are sent to the surrounds, especially if I’m listening to electronic music.

What I look to achieve is a type of immersiveness in the sense of the room in front of me opening up to whatever acoustic space is created on the recording. I have my speakers just close enough so it feels like there is some nice continuity between the space I’m inhabiting and the space that’s opened up around and beyond the loudspeakers. That puts me approximately 7 feet from my speakers. I don’t like listening in near field because to me that nudges things more towards a headphone like effect. Which feels less “ live” to me.

But if I can get the sense that a new acoustic has opened up in front of me, the very particular one on the recording, and also that I have a sensation of “ live instruments playing” within that acoustic, that’s my ultimate goal.

Do you allow your room to play any role in modifying the sense of spaciousness? Or do you leave absolutely everything up to the recording?